Hanno tells the Native American Peregrino/Wanderer:
"'I'll be glad to listen later... Also to any ideas you may have about making peace. I told you I have money. And I've always made a point of getting wires in my hands. You savvy? Certain politicians owe me favors. I can buy others. We'll work out a plan, you and I.'" (pp. 292-293)
Hanno is a man with money, made from sea trade, who invests not in armaments but in peace. While World War II was building up, Aldous Huxley argued with governments that:
preventing war would require sacrifices;
the most powerful would have to make the biggest sacrifices;
but these sacrifices would be smaller than those demanded by war or even by the then current preparations for war.
Thus, Huxley, like Hanno, tried. If more people had tried, then they would have succeeded.
(I know, of course, that, beyond a certain point in time, events had been set in motion and were just going to take their course. Then the question becomes how to prevent it from happening again.)
44 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Naivete needs to be avoided. As Stirling has said over and over, it only needs one to start a war! Hitler was bound and determined to get a war, not being satisfied with achieving his ambitions peacefully. Ambitious, dissatisfied, and frustrated powers don't want to preserve status quos they find unsatisfactory. So it's no surprise Huxley's efforts utterly failed.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Well. That is obvious. But Hitler was and has been far from the only political leader beyond reason. It is our responsibility to get ourselves better leaders.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Not good enough. Many war hungry leaders had and have plenty of supporters. And there can be no guarantee that pacifistic statesmen won't be ousted by warlike leaders.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Not good enough. We can end the causes of conflict and build peaceful societies but a lot of people will have to want it (they do) and implement it (they can)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Totally unconvincing. The real causes of was and conflicts springs from how flawed and imperfect all human beings are.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I really do not understand what is going on here. "Not good enough." "Totally unconvincing." Of course what I say does not convince you! We already know that. If you are asking me to give you a response that you will find acceptable, then we both already know that that is impossible. So what is the point? I have replied about "flawed" and "imperfect" over and over. You have not accepted my replies. I accept that you have not accepted them. I see no point in repeating all this as if it had not been said before. It is as if what has been said before has been completely forgotten.
Several times, I have listed specific material and social causes of conflict and have said how I think they can be ended. We could discuss those specific examples although we might not want to go into so much detail. But to keep repeating that we are flawed and imperfect when there has already been a lot of discussion of why many people including me do not accept this is surely pointless?
My reading of the situation (for what it is worth) is that you cannot just accept that there is a disagreement so you have to keep returning to it even though this resolves nothing.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I simply get so frustrated with people who think as you do. Their hopes and arguments are so unrealistic and at variance with how real human beings behave. But we cannot agree so I will leave it at that.
A tough old Roman, Flavius Vegetius, was more realistic. in DE RE MILITARI he wrote: "If you want peace prepare for war." Only strength and the determination needed to fight will keep aggressors at bay or rival powers from falling on each other.
And any kind of world gov't: the United Commonwealths, the Solar Commonwealth, or the Terran Empire, etc., will need to have a monopoly of the means of violence to make any kind of peace possible.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
My hopes and arguments are not unrealistic and not at variance with how real human beings behave. I get frustrated with people who think that they are. Every affirmation of one side of the argument can be matched by an equal and opposite affirmation of the other side.
You do not leave it at that but continue the argument!
I have presented arguments (and can continue to present them) that there need not always be aggressors and that the human race need not continue indefinitely to be divided into "rival powers" (armed nation states with opposed interests).
We can have a federation of free societies and communities in which there are no longer any means of violence: no arms manufacturers; no arms trade; no bodies of armed men. Peace is possible only without those things.
Of course, if you assume that nothing will change, then, yes, it follows that nothing will change.
Human cooperation and technological means of producing and equally distributing abundant wealth can, not inevitably will, generate a society as different from ours as ours is from hunting and gathering. Fundamental evolutionary, social and historical changes have happened and there is potentially an indefinite future in which even more such changes can happen as sf writers recognize and try to express.
Will we leave it at that or will we continue to say what we have already said?
Paul.
And now we have the newly re-elected PotUS making noises about taking over various bits of real estate for the US. Violently if necessary. As a citizen of one of those pieces of real estate, I strongly resent him even making such bullying noises. I guess Canada & Denmark and Panama need to prepare for war to hopefully make the bully back down.
Kaor, Paul and Jim!
Paul: Exactly! I don't believe or expect human beings to change, that is our basic point of disagreement. And any kind of world federation will still need to have a monopoly of the means of violence.
Jim: In many ways I like how Pres. Trump has been shaking up everything! After the feeble, ineffectual, virtually comatose "Josip" an active President is a relief.
I don't think Canada needs to worry about being annexed by the US--Trump was putting pressure on Ontario to get serious about the border problems which has been angering so many in the US. And the Canadian PM, Trudeau, has announced taking steps to meet the wishes of the US.
Because of the crucial importance of the Panama Canal to the US, I take the possibility of the US retaking control of it more seriously. Esp. when we recall how China has been intriguing there. But the gov't of Panama has been taking steps to placate the US, such as announcing it was cancelling a major new deal with Peking.
Not sure about Greenland. The US might end up being satisfied with making an agreement with Denmark about the US having a greater military presence there, to guard against meddling by Russia and China--which would be good.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But our pre-human ancestors changed into human beings and we are differentiated as a species by the fact that we change our environment with hands and brains and have changed ourselves into linguistic beings in the process so how can anything in us be unchanging?
Paul.
It wasn't that Hitler wanted war; he wanted results that could only be -gotten- by war.
But he didn't want the war he got. He didn't want WWII, which he -- and the German military leaders -- knew they'd lose.
Teddy Roosevelt wanted the Panama Canal. He was quite ready to negotiate with Colombia over the Canal Zone, but the Colombian government kept upping their demands; so he did a neat little trick and supported a Panamanian movement for independence, on condition that they turn over the canal zone.
BTW, there had been literally -dozens- of attempts at Panamanian independence over the course of the 19th century. The Panamanians felt no particular kinship with Colombians -- there was no overland route between Panama and the rest of Colombia, just for starters.
The difference was that previously the US had supported Colombian unity; now they changed their minds.
Paul: we have instincts that predispose us to do certain things. Instincts can alter -- but evolution takes a long time, because you have to alter the DNA.
We're inherently political, and as the great pioneering sociologist Max Weber pointed out, the ultimately decisive means of political action is always violence.
Napoleon was once asked whether he wanted war. He replied; "Do I look like a madman? Of course I don't want war. I want -victory-."
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: No, to use Stirling's arguments, we have instincts which strongly predispose us, as a species, to be competitive, aggressive, warlike, etc. The hopes for the kinds of changes you would like goes against those instincts, which is why those hopes will continually fail. If you want those instincts to change you are going to have to wait a very, very, very long time for evolution to possibly change them. Or use genetic engineering to do the changing--which I believe could be very dangerous and backfire (reread Stirling's THE STONE DOGS and DRAKON).
Where I differ slightly from Stirling is that I also believe, as a matter of divine revelation, that those instincts cannot be changed because the human race is Fallen. Whatever it is that makes us so prone to being violent, quarrelsome, aggressive, etc., can only be managed, not eliminated. Hence the need for the State, in no matter what form, to act as a control on those propensities.
Mr. Stirling! Absolutely, what you wrote above! Hitler's problem was that, as a gambler he went too far and got the kind of war which Germany could not win. Which was Napoleon's problem as well, with Talleyrand saying after his downfall that the Emperor did not know how to stop, that enough was enough. But Anderson did write a story speculating about what might have happened if Napoleon had been more cautious, more willing to listen to Talleyrand.
I agree, what you said about TR and the Panama Canal. Colombia's problem was it got too greedy in those negotiations with the US.
Ad astra! Sean
Mr Stirling,
In everything that I argue, I have in mind what you have previously said about instincts and that does affect the argument but not to the extent that Sean thinks. We are not strongly disposed to competition, aggression and war. Look at most people most of the time. Aggression and war is a total misrepresentation. Things that are got by war can be got by other means.
We do not need genetic engineering to produce abundant wealth so that people no longer compete for wealth or to abolish means of coercion so that people no longer compete for power. Prestige and influence are not coercion.
Sean, you do not reply to most of what I write. You state your interpretation of the facts as if it were a fact. Of course many individuals and societies remain as they have been for long periods of time but everything changes over longer periods of time, sometimes abruptly. We live in a period of unprecedented changes and possibilities. One possibility is imminent global destruction which demands increased cooperation, not increased competition or continued military conflict and expulsion of populations.
Busy here. More later.
Paul.
Sean,
"Violent, quarrelsome, aggressive." This is merely repeated. We are also prone to the exact opposites of these. Your account is completely one-sided. Accentuate the positive.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
It doesn't matter if most people, most of the time, are not violent/aggressive. For many that will because the State, with its monopoly of violence, lurks in the background to enforce peacefulness. Also, I believe that propensity for being violent exists in all of us--and can be triggered in any of us at any time. Most of us, most of the time, manage to control that urge, because the costs from indulging it outweighs the benefits.
I do not believe universal wealth will eliminate the drive to be competitive--because many will soon be bored and frustrated, from having nothing to and a sense of worthlessness. That will increase the drive to compete for kudos, prestige, status, and power. I do not believe sports and arts will satisfy many for long--meaning ambitious people will compete for power--and power is one thing which is always in short supply!
You keep talking about changes--except I never see the kinds of changes you hope for. All you have been offering are speculations, hopes, dreams--and that is not good enough. I believe in facing, and accepting, the hard facts of what real human beings are: imperfect, flawed, often prone to being violent and quarrelsome. And that means accepting the State, with its coercive powers for punishing those who go too far. As for the craving for power, the best we can do is channel that drive into non-violent means of gaining power. Which is what constitutional or democratic regimes try to do.
You say "stress the positive," but I believe in the need for first trying to cope with our negatives. Negatives permanently parts of us.
Busy? I assume because of things like still getting settled down in your new house!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You have said all these things before and I have replied to them before. Surely this repetition must stop?
Yes.
Paul.
Paul: there have been a number of studies of pre-State level human remains in museums and anthropological collections.
They show a consistent pattern: 1/3 of adult males show signs of dying by violence, and about half that among adult females.
But that's a gross underestimate, because bones don't show soft tissue damage.
Like Otzi the Iceman, who turned out to have been shot in the back with an arrow (which killed him quickly on that glacier) and to have defense cuts on his forearms.
So in a "state of nature" -- that is, without the coercion of the State and the threat of it and the fear it instills -- the commonest way for an adult male to die is to be killed by other human beings. And it's pretty common for adult females, too.
This fits the pattern of other social carnivores, and human beings are social carnivores and have been for nearly 2 million years, since the emergence of H. Erectus.
Whereas the State has only existed since the late Neolithic.
I have taken on board that point made before as well and am obviously not happy about that amount of prehistoric violence!
A post-state society, if we can get it, will not be a mere return to a pre-state society, e.g., everyone will not be struggling for survival. Quite the contrary. Needs will be addressed. Social relationships will be civilized. Etc. "...if we can get it..." is debatable. I am only too aware of the massive forces currently ranged against any such outcome. But I do not regard the debate as closed either.
Sean: "I like how Pres. Trump has been shaking up everything"
This from the man who repeatedly talks about his disapproval of revolutions.
As a side note, Trump's support for RFK Jr and his anti-vax views, reminds of Stalin's support for Lysenko.
Stirling:
It's true that pre-state societies were violent. It is precisely the lesser violence within state societies & especially within & between democratic states that gives me some hope for further improvements.
"Better Angels of Our Nature" by Steven Pinker and "Never at War: Why Democracies Will Not Fight One Another" by Spencer Weart help give me that hope. However, perhaps you are aware of cogent critiques of those books. I want to know the bad news if it exists.
My chief worry about 'Democratic Peace Theory' is the question of how stable is democracy. The re-election of Trump makes me worry about democracy failing in the US.
Kaor, Paul and Jim!
Paul: I believe your hopes for some kind of peaceful, prosperous, implausibly "saintly" post-State society to be dangerously unrealistic. Because humans are going to remain social carnivores/Fallen. You should accept that only the existence of the State makes any kind of peace possible.
Ah, the irony! I'm a conservative more inclined than not to be distrustful of the State--because of its inherent tendency to amass too much power. But mistaken ideas needs to be resisted.
Jim: "Shaking up" is nothing like what we have seen in real revolutions, such as the bloody horrors of the French and Russian revolutions. Trump is nothing like monsters such as Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, et al.
Nor do I share your confidence about democracies. As far as I'm concerned leftists are far more dangerous, because of how so many, many of them favor policies which ends up centralizing more and more power in the State.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I should not accept that. We are not Fallen. We do not have to remain social carnivores. We can change. We have changed our environment and thus have changed ourselves into human beings. We can, not inevitably will, change our material conditions, our social relationships and our individual psychologies further: not every individual in existence now but different individuals living in different conditions with different assumptions and expectations in future.
Sean, why do you keep doing this? If you restate your view yet again as if it were an indisputable fact, then I can respond by restating my view yet again ad infinitum. Beyond a certain point, mere repetition should stop and contrary views should be laid to rest unless, maybe, they can be re-expressed on a future occasion in a fresh way. I have explained how and why I think that social carnivorism (?) can be made redundant. Clearly you have not accepted my explanations. I accept that you have not. But you cannot seem to let go of an unresolved disagreement so it has to be merely restated as if it had not been stated before. It seems to me that there is something wrong with this process. I am not - at this stage - saying that your view is wrong. I am saying that I think that there is something wrong with endlessly restating it.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I "repeat" because you also repeat. Why do you keep advocating for ideas and things which are simply not true? Are people who don't agree with you suppose to remain silent and never object?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
"...ideas and things which are simply not true?" That is an opinion stated as if it were a fact. If I agreed that something was "simply not true," then I would not advocate it.
I think that, if you trace back the present protracted exchange to its origin, the starting point was not me advocating anything but simply me quoting Huxley to draw a parallel between him and Hanno.
Paul.
Sean,
Trump has pardoned rioters.
Paul.
Sean,
I think that we have identified a basic communication problem. I state a proposition, P. You contradict P. Thus, you say "not-P." (I am partly adapting symbolic logic terminology.) When I say P and you say not-P, my way of describing this situation is to say that we disagree. Your way of describing it (I think) is to say that P is simply not true so you cannot understand why I am saying it! Well, I wouldn't either! If someone stated that there were two suns in the sky, then I would not understand why he was saying that.
If saying that radically different material and social conditions can bring about radically different human behaviour is as absurd as saying that there are two suns in the sky, then, yes, it does follow from that alone that my views are utterly inexplicable. Needless to say, I do not agree that my views on changing conditions and changing behaviour are as absurd as a claim that there are two suns. So each of us needs to accept that here is a genuine disagreement, not one person saying something that both persons can see is simply untrue.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Exactly, I don't believe any allegedly "...radically different material and social conditions can bring about radically different..." ways humans will behave. And I believe the hard facts of real life, real history (including archeological evidence going back literally millions of years) supports my side of this debate.
These debates happens so often because Anderson himself brings up these issues in his works. I believe any candid discussion of his stories has to include discussion of those issues.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I still think that we are missing a very basic point here. I accept that you do not accept a particular statement that I have made. I accept that you think that the evidence is on your side. For the moment, I am accepting this situation, that that particular disagreement exists between us. But I am trying to say something else about it.
You recently seemed to imply something more, that I am not merely making a statement that you disagree with but that I am making a statement that is "simply untrue," i.e., that I am saying something that is so obviously untrue that I should not even be making the statement. That is why I made the comparison with saying that there are two suns in the sky - obviously untrue.
If I were saying something that was so obviously untrue to everyone INCLUDING TO ME (capital letters only for emphasis, not to raise the voice!), then it would follow that, for some bizarre reason, I was lying. And, in that case, it would be impossible to continue with any discussion on this subject and we would have to acknowledge that fact and move on from it.
That aside, I still think that, at least for the time being, we have each said all that we have to say on this subject. I have more than once replied to your claim that the evidence is on your side and I do not propose to repeat my reply.
I feel that I am trying to clarify some fundamental parameters of discussion so that maybe future discussions can be less bogged down in confusions, misunderstandings and cross-purposes.
Paul.
Paul: the pre-State societies were not struggling for -survival- most of the time.
Hunter-gatherers don't have to work very hard -- about 4 hours a day, usually.
Farmers were worse-off, but in a thinly inhabited world they usually did OK because they could use optimum soils. As late as 2000 years ago the world population was only about 200 million.
There were occasional disasters for both, but those were exceptions. Day-to-day living wasn't a fight.
People were struggling for -power-.
Kaor, Paul!
But I never thought you were lying, only that you have a strong belief in ideas you sincerely believe to be true. Which then led you to making statements that seemed, to me, factually untrue. I do believe people can honestly believe in objectively untrue things..
Also, Stirling's comments, immediately above, describes what I believe will happen in any hypothetical post scarcity economy: people will still struggle and compete for prestige, status, power. The problem will be to channel those aggressive urges into non-violent ways of attaining power.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I didn't think you thought I was lying! Just that that would be the logical implication if I were saying something that everyone, including myself, could see to be obviously untrue. (it is unfortunately necessary to keep clarifying what we meant.)
I have replied on "prestige, status, power" often enough before.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Can we at least agree on the necessity, in any stable society, of channeling the human drive to compete into non-destructive means of gaining what is desired? Agitating for votes is better than shooting one's way into power!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I am not sure how deep this "human drive to compete" is. Any society will have competitive sports. People spontaneously play and watch football. They do not have to be "channeled" toward it.
If I attend a philosophical conference, I just want to make my contribution and hear others, not to compete.
Going out.
Paul.
I would like a society where everyone's full potential is developed so that there is no energy left over that would become destructive if it was not channeled safely.
Paul: the general assumption should be that the "state of nature" is always there, waiting to come back if allowed.
Kaor, Paul!
That competitive drive or urge is deeply rooted in us, even if "most" of us don't set out to be bloodthirsty conquerors. What does need "channeling" is directing that competitive to non-violent means of gaining office and power when it comes to politics.
And the chaos in Haiti is as perfect an example as possible of what happens when that "state of nature" comes back!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes, of course. As long as there are power-wielding public "offices," then there must be non-violent ways of gaining those offices.
A post-state society if such is possible (and I am trying to avoid going through that argument again) will not be a return to a pre-state society or to a "state of nature" but will be... Well, we have discussed all that before.
Paul.
At some stage, we have to stop merely prosecuting an argument and stand back and assess it, a second order process which some people find difficult.
Kaor, Paul!
Agree, no need to restate here opposing points of view.
Ad astra! Sean
From SM Stirling:
Note that for social animals, evolution is primarily about interaction with other members of the same species -- because that's what governs successful reproduction.
We were effective hunters as long ago as h. erectus, who hunted hippos with spears, which is about as effective as you can get.
Subsequent evolution was more about dealing with -each other-.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
And human beings still manage to muck up dealing with each other every day!
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment